Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 27-32 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11581109 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim mapping below
Instant Application
27. A power transmission system, comprising:a plurality of support towers;a plurality of conductor assemblies suspended above a surface of the earth, each conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies disposed between and mechanically supported by a pair of support towers from the plurality of support towers, each conductor assembly including a superconductor material and configured to receive a flow of coolant to maintain the superconductor material within a temperature range below an ambient temperature; and a venting system configured to vent vapor produced by the coolant during operation of the power transmission system.
28. The power transmission system of claim 27, wherein the venting system is configured to vent the vapor to an ambient environment.
US Patent 11581109 B2
1. A power transmission system, comprising: a plurality of support towers; and a plurality of conductor assemblies suspended above a surface of earth, each conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies disposed between and mechanically supported by a pair of support towers from the plurality of support towers, each conductor assembly including an electrical conductor including a superconductor material and configured to receive a coolant flow to maintain the superconductor material within a temperature range below an ambient temperature, wherein at least one support tower from the plurality of support towers includes an intermediate cooling station configured to vent vapor produced by a coolant to an ambient environment during operation of the power transmission system
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim (s) 33, 38-43 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP 2008113535 A) in view of Alexander et al. (EP 3051542 A1) hereinafter Alexander.
Regarding claim 33, Hirose discloses, in Fig.1, power transmission system, comprising: a plurality of support towers (see towers); and a plurality of conductor assemblies (800) suspended above a surface of earth, each conductor assembly ( see 800 in Fig.1 or 100 in Fig.2) from the plurality of conductor assemblies disposed between and mechanically supported by a pair of support towers from the plurality of support towers (see 800 suspended above the earth between the towers in Fig.1).
Hirose is silent with respect to each conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies including: a former having a hollow interior configured to transport a coolant; a superconductor material disposed around an exterior of the former; and a thermal insulation jacket disposed around and spaced apart from the superconductor material to define a coolant flow space, the coolant flow space configured to transport at least a portion of the coolant between the superconductor material and an inner surface of the thermal insulation jacket.
Alexander discloses a conductor assembly including: a former (see 2 in Figure1) having a hollow interior configured to transport a coolant; a superconductor material (4) disposed around an exterior of the former; and a thermal insulation jacket (11) disposed around and spaced apart from the superconductor material to define a coolant flow space (see space 9 and 10), the coolant flow space configured to transport at least a portion of the coolant between the superconductor material and an inner surface of the thermal insulation jacket (see space between 9 and 10 has coolant between ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Alexander to modify the conductor assemblies of Hirose in order to provide a super conductivity to cables to perform circuit operations.
Regarding claim 38, a modified Hirose discloses wherein the coolant includes at least one of liquid nitrogen (liquid nitrogen is circuiting within cable 100 of Fig.2).
Regarding claim 39, a modified Hirose, wherein the superconducting material includes one of a plurality of superconductor-containing members (see 4 and 9 in Fig.1 of Alexander).
Regarding claim 40, Hirose discloses, in Fig.1, a power transmission system, comprising: a plurality of support towers (see towers in Fig.1); a plurality of conductor assemblies (800) suspended above a surface of earth, each conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies disposed between and mechanically supported by a pair of support towers from the plurality of support towers (see Fig.1); and a coolant supply system configured to deliver a coolant during operation of the power transmission system to at least one conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies (see “ In the superconducting cable 100, liquid nitrogen serving as a refrigerant is circulated in a heat insulating pipe using a refrigerator and a pump (not shown). Specifically, a space formed between the heat insulating inner tube and the core is used as a refrigerant flow path.”).
Hirose is silent with resepct to each conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies including: a former having a hollow interior configured to transport the coolant; a superconductor material disposed around an exterior of the former; and a thermal insulation jacket disposed around and spaced apart from the superconductor material to define a coolant flow space, the coolant flow space configured to transport at least a portion of the coolant between the superconductor material and an inner surface of the thermal insulation jacket.
Alexander discloses a conductor assembly including: a former (see 2 in Figure1) having a hollow interior configured to transport a coolant; a superconductor material (4) disposed around an exterior of the former; and a thermal insulation jacket (11) disposed around and spaced apart from the superconductor material to define a coolant flow space (see space 9 and 10), the coolant flow space configured to transport at least a portion of the coolant between the superconductor material and an inner surface of the thermal insulation jacket (see space between 9 and 10 has coolant between ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Alexander to modify the conductor assemblies of Hirose in order to provide a super conductivity to cables to perform circuit operations.
Regarding claim 41, Hirose discloses wherein the coolant supply system includes a conditioning unit configured to supply the coolant to the at least one conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies at a selected temperature and pressure (see “ In the superconducting cable 100, liquid nitrogen serving as a refrigerant is circulated in a heat insulating pipe using a refrigerator and a pump (not shown). Specifically, a space formed between the heat insulating inner tube and the core is used as a refrigerant flow path.”)
Regarding claim 42, Hirose discloses wherein the conditioning unit is configured to adjust at least one of a temperature or a pressure of the coolant before causing the coolant to flow from the coolant supply system (see “ In the superconducting cable 100, liquid nitrogen serving as a refrigerant is circulated in a heat insulating pipe using a refrigerator and a pump (not shown). Specifically, a space formed between the heat insulating inner tube and the core is used as a refrigerant flow path.”).
Regarding claim 43, a modified Hirose discloses, wherein at least a portion of the coolant delivered from the coolant supply system to the at least one conductor assembly from the plurality of conductor assemblies returns back to the coolant supply system ( the coolant system is a closed loop system).
Regarding claim 46, a modified Hirose discloses wherein the coolant includes at least one of liquid nitrogen (liquid nitrogen is circuiting within cable 100 of Fig.2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-37 and 44-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 34, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the hollow interior of the former is configured to transport the coolant at a pressure greater than a pressure of the coolant flow space.
" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 33.
Regarding claim 35, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the hollow interior of the former is configured to transport the coolant at a pressure greater than a pressure of the coolant flow space. " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 33.
Regarding claim 36-37, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a venting system configured to vent vapor produced by the coolant during operation of the power transmission system. " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 33.
Regarding claim 44, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" wherein the coolant supply system is disposed between a first portion of the conductor assembly and a second portion of the conductor assembly, the coolant supply system configured to provide a first portion of the coolant to the first portion of the conductor assembly in a first direction, and a second portion of the coolant to the second portion of the conductor assembly in a second direction opposite to the first direction" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 40.
Regarding claim 45, The prior art of record neither anticipates norrenders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole eithertaken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach" a venting system configured to vent vapor produced by the coolant during operation of the power transmission system. " in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim 40.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instantapplication claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance."
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights